1. The argument that "it's been happening for the last ten years" is not a valid justification for the continuation of a practice that infringes on user privacy. Progress in digital privacy rights should aim at enhancing user control over their data, not maintaining status quo.
2. The suggestion that Google has only a limited choice between maintaining its main source of income or facing antitrust lawsuits is an oversimplification. Google, as one of the most influential tech companies, has the power and resources to innovate and find alternative models that respect user privacy while also providing value to their advertisers.
3. The idea that an API to track browsing history is a "privacy measure" because it can be "spoofed" by the user is flawed because it assumes all users have the technical knowledge and time to do so. This should not be a user's responsibility; privacy should be a default setting, not an option for the tech-savvy.
4. Lastly, just because the browsing history isn't directly submitted to Google does not mean it cannot be misused. Even if Google uses this data responsibly, the potential for abuse still exists with third parties